Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Great idea. Start by looking into the links right in BadKosh's post, and discover that the Task Force Mom's kid was actually the one who took the plans to the police, preventing the massacre, but was convicted after all the kids blamed each other.

One of the frequent reasons cited for us owning whatever guns we want is giving us tools to overthrow a tyrannical government. This notion is so absurd, it is laughable.

In the event of a civil war, the victor will be whomever the US military sides with. Our assault rifles and hand guns are no match for predator drones, tanks, bombs, and whatever else they could throw at us. If the military will help us overthrow a tyrannical regime then we can just sit back and let them do their job while it obliterates Obama, Boehner, Reid and their minions.

I think some of the gun nuts worried about tyrannical governments replacement our democracy are basically just wannabe cowboys that have watched too many Die Hard movies.

One of the frequent reasons cited for us owning whatever guns we want is giving us tools to overthrow a tyrannical government. This notion is so absurd, it is laughable.

Until you look at other nations who were noble at one time, and then turned on their citizenry. I'm not talking about next year, or even 10 years from now, but none of us knows what the state of the nation will be like by 2030. Ensuring that the populace has access to a means of defense makes it much more difficult for them to be centrally controlled. I'm not talking about tools for destruction, but as a strong deterrent to tyranny.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

Until you look at other countries who were noble at one time, and then turned on their citizenry. I'm not talking about next year, or even 10 years from now, but none of us knows what the state of the nation will be like by 2030. Ensuring that the populace has access to a means of defense makes it much more difficult for them to be centrally controlled. I'm not talking about tools for destruction, but as a strong deterrent to tyranny.

And all of them already had dictators, not established democracies like ours.

Guns in our hands provide pretty much zero deterrent to tyranny, control over our military does.

And all of them already had dictators, not established democracies like ours.

Guns in our hands provide pretty much zero deterrent to tyranny, control over our military does.

As I said, our government could turn into a dictatorship, we don't know what the future holds. If a civil war were to break out, the military would splinter, there would be chaos, and any means of defense would be better than none. I think any citizen should be able to own any firearm, short of nukes and chemical weapons, but that doesn't mean they can walk around with them (more like keep them locked away in case of a worst case scenario).

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

In the event of a civil war, the victor will be whomever the US military sides with. Our assault rifles and hand guns are no match for predator drones, tanks, bombs, and whatever else they could throw at us. If the military will help us overthrow a tyrannical regime then we can just sit back and let them do their job while it obliterates Obama, Boehner, Reid and their minions.

What if members of the military are as divided as the rest of the country?

As I said, our government could turn into a dictatorship, we don't know what the future holds. If a civil war were to break out, the military would splinter, there would be chaos, and any means of defense would be better than none. I think any citizen should be able to own any firearm, short of nukes and chemical weapons, but that doesn't mean they can walk around with them (more like keep them locked away in case of a worst case scenario).

We could also be attacked by aliens. Sorry to sound so mocking, but it's really such a non-concern with the overwhelming number of checks and balances in our system, and even if this were to happen, again, the military wins every time.

Why do many right wingers support adding to the military if they are distrusting of government and think we might become ruled by a dictator some day? Makes no sense to me, and certainly is a weak primary argument.

They would be, no one would want to attack their own family and neighbors. It would be some very nasty business.

And whomever or whatever has access to their technology and resources will be our real worry, our having guns will do us no good.

For that matter, our guns will have little to no good against any military force of any country, and in this weird universe where this highly unlikely thing happens, this will surely be a global conflict, and probably Obama's fault!

For that matter, our guns will have little to no good against any military force of any country, and in this weird universe where this highly unlikely thing happens, this will surely be a global conflict

The American Revolution was something of a global conflict too. The colonists would have been no match for the English without the assistance of the French, yet the French likely would have never bet on the colonists if the colonists hadn't been armed at all. Why wouldn't the same be true today? I can imagine there being a foreign ally or two willing to back an insurrection, but at the same time unwilling to back a completely unarmed insurrection.

And whomever or whatever has access to their technology and resources will be our real worry, our having guns will do us no good.

For that matter, our guns will have little to no good against any military force of any country, and in this weird universe where this highly unlikely thing happens, this will surely be a global conflict, and probably Obama's fault!

Tell that to the Soviets.

I promise you, an invading force would not want to deal with the folks around here if the fecal missile hits the propeller blade. How long did it take for law enforcement to catch an unarmed Eric Rudolph in the Appalachian mountains? Imagine 25M people armed, defending their lands throughout the SE and Midwest US, it would be a nightmare for that invader, no matter who they are.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

I'm not talking about next year, or even 10 years from now, but none of us knows what the state of the nation will be like by 2030. Ensuring that the populace has access to a means of defense makes it much more difficult for them to be centrally controlled. I'm not talking about tools for destruction, but as a strong deterrent to tyranny.

If the federal government truly wished to oppress people with guns, does anyone here think that some middle-aged rube in a 'bunker' could hold off government agents or military units with permission to use whatever lethal means they have at their disposal?

Do you think that a "tyrannical" government would worry about capturing these people, or be held back by legal restraints in dealing with them?

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I promise you, an invading force would not want to deal with the folks around... Imagine 25M people armed, defending their lands throughout the SE and Midwest US, it would be a nightmare for that invader, no matter who they are.

More Red Dawn mythology.

First of all, even if there were an entity capable of invading the U.S. successfully, why should a few rednecks in the woods be a problem for them when the combined forces of the U.S. military were not?

Would an invading force would feel constrained by the legal niceties that have held back American law enforcement?

Exactly! What is with this weird fantasy? 25M armed civilians having it out with the tyrannical government in this country is about as likely as an alien invasion, or being attacked by an army of rabid zombie unicorns.

Exactly! What is with this weird fantasy? 25M armed civilians having it out with the tyrannical government in this country is about as likely as an alien invasion, or being attacked by an army of rabid zombie unicorns.

Simple: the most important thing is wanting to own lots and lots of guns. Any argument that rationalizes that goal will work.

There are a lot of rational, responsible gun owners out there who recognize the utter foolishness of the "defend against tyranny" and "protect against invasion" arguments, but unfortunately, they don't get much attention.

Simple: the most important thing is wanting to own lots and lots of guns. Any argument that rationalizes that goal will work.

There are a lot of rational, responsible gun owners out there who recognize the utter foolishness of the "defend against tyranny" and "protect against invasion" arguments, but unfortunately, they don't get much attention.

That's my thinking too.

I think a better argument is self-defense, although it is a little problematic too depending on which way you take it. Constitution based arguments are flimsy too for the reasons you've stated and a number of others we've gone over, although I suppose if you want to take a very particular interpretation and treat it as biblical you might be able to make that argument hold up. Target practice and hunting can be valid, until you get into the crazier more lethal weapons - hunters generally don't want to blow the living ponies and rainbows out of Bambi. The tyranny thing is just lame though.

I think the most common outlook on this (whether individuals accept this or not) is this that some people are generally fearful and/or angry and distrust the government with great fervor (although trust the military?), and feel empowered by guns. Guns are great profit makers, and are propped up by this rhetoric about cowboy patriotism and all of this other stuff, as well as sources of violent entertainment by the entities that benefit the greatest financially or politically from gun proliferation.

I know that few in here will agree with this outlook, but that's because you are all smarter than average and can support your feelings with a more (valid) academic argument. Joe Sixpack doesn't know jackshit about the constitution, he just likes his guns.

I think a better argument is self-defense, although it is a little problematic too depending on which way you take it.

Well, the bottom line is that it is legal to own weapons in the United States, and it will always be so unless the Second Amendment is removed or superseded. In this sense, the reasons for owning are not important.

But, since it is perfectly legal to restrict gun ownership, the question of why we need them in the first place becomes very important. The fact is that the "against tyranny" argument lets you own the really powerful stuff, but self-defense, hunting and target practice don't. So you can see why some people might insist on it, even if it is laughably false.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Constitution based arguments are flimsy too for the reasons you've stated and a number of others we've gone over, although I suppose if you want to take a very particular interpretation and treat it as biblical you might be able to make that argument hold up.

The problem with most Constitution-as-Bible arguments is that those who want to make them most seldom understand the document. Look at Snow-i's comments in this thread- I'm "splitting hairs" because he doesn't want to admit that the Constitution clearly rules out the "against tyranny" argument, and may have even been unaware of the two sections I quoted.

However, he is right that the amendment does "empower" people to own guns- but a little confused as to how far that "empowerment" extends.

Regardless, the "biblical" argument doesn't hold up either, since the "bible" contains instructions for changing itself as well as how to handle all of the other things that it doesn't address.

Guns are great profit makers, and are propped up by this rhetoric about cowboy patriotism and all of this other stuff, as well as sources of violent entertainment by the entities that benefit the greatest financially or politically from gun proliferation.

A very big part of the problem is that gun owners allow the NRA to speak for them, when it does not have their interests at heart.

Here(WARNING: links to PDF) is a poll conducted by Republican Party strategist Frank Luntz (perhaps you've seen him on Fox News?). Have a look at the figures, note that in each case, the NRA membership overwhelmingly supports the measures described, and then note that the NRA has always opposed and undermined attempts to create legislation that would allow these measures to be taken.

Well, the bottom line is that it is legal to own weapons in the United States, and it will always be so unless the Second Amendment is removed or superseded. In this sense, the reasons for owning are not important.

But, since it is perfectly legal to restrict gun ownership, the question of why we need them in the first place becomes very important. The fact is that the "against tyranny" argument lets you own the really powerful stuff, but self-defense, hunting and target practice don't. So you can see why some people might insist on it, even if it is laughably false.

The problem with most Constitution-as-Bible arguments is that those who want to make them most seldom understand the document. Look at Snow-i's comments in this thread- I'm "splitting hairs" because he doesn't want to admit that the Constitution clearly rules out the "against tyranny" argument, and may have even been unaware of the two sections I quoted.

However, he is right that the amendment does "empower" people to own guns- but a little confused as to how far that "empowerment" extends.

Regardless, the "biblical" argument doesn't hold up either, since the "bible" contains instructions for changing itself as well as how to handle all of the other things that it doesn't address.

raleur: you are my favorite sock-puppet, I'm so glad I found you in my drawer!

A very big part of the problem is that gun owners allow the NRA to speak for them, when it does not have their interests at heart.

I thought it odd that in that Alex James/Piers Morgan wreck of an interview that Alex is super paranoid about pharmaceutical companies but not gun makers or the NRA in terms of lobbying and throwing their money around. It was crappy that Piers didn't call him on it.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

If the federal government truly wished to oppress people with guns, does anyone here think that some middle-aged rube in a 'bunker' could hold off government agents or military units with permission to use whatever lethal means they have at their disposal?

Why do you have to undermine your own argument like this? The "middle aged rube" part is by far more problematic than the "bunker" part. If you have to add that in to make a point, it means you didn't have a point without adding that in.

Do you think that a "tyrannical" government would worry about capturing these people, or be held back by legal restraints in dealing with them?

Then why didn't we win in Vietnam? Was it because we "held back?" You really think the army would "hold back" more against the Viet Cong than they would against their own countrymen?

More Red Dawn mythology.

First of all, even if there were an entity capable of invading the U.S. successfully, why should a few rednecks in the woods be a problem for them when the combined forces of the U.S. military were not?

Because it's more than a few. Why should the peasants of Vietnam have been a problem for US forces, when the combined might of Nazi Germany was not?

You are falling into a common trap: it's not about victory for the "bubba" side, it's about denying victory to the other side (be it foreign or domestic). No one said the expectation was about coming out of a revolution unscathed. That would be stupid; no revolution has been a cake walk. No one even said that we could expect to win the revolution, or even deny victory to the other side. It's about putting up a fight instead of just giving up all hope decades before the fight even began.

In this way it's not unlike the standard home invader scenario. A gun doesn't guarantee you will defeat the invader, it just gives you a chance to do so. Your side wants us to accept defeat before the conflict has even started.

That's like saying you don't think the solution to malicious computer code is more computer code.

No, not really. Building an efficient, small footprint, smarter antimalware package is more important than the bloated piece of crap that is Norton Antivirus. Additional changes that don't require more code would be code signing and certificates.

Proper gun control can make a huge difference. It has been demonstrated over and over that an outright ban on guns reduces gun violence by a huge margin. The reason it hasn't worked in the U.S. is because every ban we've ever instituted did not remove existing gun supplies. I would like to see something similar to the U.K. You can own a rifle or shotgun with a license and use it for hunting and sport. Nearly anyone can own a gun provided they're a registered member of a gun club and can demonstrate proper handling of the firearm. The U.S. has 40 times as many gun related deaths than the U.K., and that's adjusting for population.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

The Bill of Rights is not obsolete. The separation of powers is not obsolete. The amendment process is not obsolete.

I'm not sure why you went down this road. I wouldn't mind seeing changes to the 2nd Amendment.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

If we allow people to side-step the bill of rights out of convenience, when there's a perfectly legitimate route to amending it that we're not even discussing, then we have much bigger problems than a few school shootings every year.

I don't think it needs an amendment, just a change in our interpretation plus stricter laws.

Originally Posted by ghporter

We DID have an organized military; the Army, Navy, and Marines all existed at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.

That is very true, but not to the extent that we didn't rely on militias.

Originally Posted by ghporter

People are lax with gun safety because a lot of them need education, and plenty of it. Without a simple introduction to what a gun will and will not do, and to the basic rules of firearms safety, anyone could be seen as lax. But it isn't "lax" if you've never been trained...it's a lack of training. Instead of making guns all mysterious and magical, we should just teach everyone "this is a gun; if you are not interested in putting in some time to learn about it, just move along and never touch it," the perceived laxity in safety would pretty much disappear.

We live in a country where 40% of its population is willfully ignorant of the theory of evolution. I have zero faith in any sort of education bringing people around to proper gun safety. The mother of the Connecticut shooter probably knew that her automatic assault rifle killed people. Just like a driver's license, once they get it, they throw everything they learned out the window. Unlike you or anyone else with proper gun training, the average citizen is simply looking to take part in a national pissing contest. Of course guns kill people, they just don't give a sh*t.

"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

That's like saying you don't think the solution to malicious computer code is more computer code.

No, not really. Building an efficient, small footprint, smarter antimalware package is more important than the bloated piece of crap that is Norton Antivirus. Additional changes that don't require more code would be code signing and certificates.

That confirms exactly what I said: the analogy is apt. That you found an exception within the apt analogy does not mean your blanket dismissal of the alternative (vastly dominant) strategy used in software was a justified dismissal.

Proper gun control can make a huge difference. It has been demonstrated over and over that an outright ban on guns reduces gun violence by a huge margin. The reason it hasn't worked in the U.S. is because every ban we've ever instituted did not remove existing gun supplies. I would like to see something similar to the U.K. You can own a rifle or shotgun with a license and use it for hunting and sport. Nearly anyone can own a gun provided they're a registered member of a gun club and can demonstrate proper handling of the firearm. The U.S. has 40 times as many gun related deaths than the U.K., and that's adjusting for population.

Never been tried in a place that started with this many guns, both legal and illegal.

I'm not sure why you went down this road. I wouldn't mind seeing changes to the 2nd Amendment.

"Wouldn't mind" isn't nearly far enough. It has to be the means by which it is accomplished. Until you're actually pushing for a new amendment, you're just navel gazing.

I don't think it needs an amendment, just a change in our interpretation plus stricter laws.

That would break the whole concept of the bill of rights. You can't just "interpret" away rights when they're inconvenient, or we won't have any rights left at the end of the day. There's a reason it takes a supermajority to remove (or add) our rights. If you find any way to make those changes without garnering that supermajority, you are breaking all the rights, not just the one you want to break.

Just like a driver's license, once they get it, they throw everything they learned out the window.

This exaggeration is a problem in itself, however not half the problem we would have if people were never trained in the first place.

I thought it odd that in that Alex James/Piers Morgan wreck of an interview that Alex is super paranoid about pharmaceutical companies but not gun makers or the NRA in terms of lobbying and throwing their money around. It was crappy that Piers didn't call him on it.

More to the point, where were all those guns when the PATRIOT Act was passed?

Yeah, they kind of glossed over my comment about the Soviets. How did the war(s) in Afghanistan work out for them?

No, not glossed over, just dismissed because it's a ridiculous comparison.

I'll treat it seriously as soon as you can tell me how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan reasonably compares to an invasion and occupation of the United States, specifically in terms of the size and potency of the forces needed.

No, not glossed over, just dismissed because it's a ridiculous comparison.

I'll treat it seriously as soon as you can tell me how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan reasonably compares to an invasion and occupation of the United States, specifically in terms of the size and potency of the forces needed.

It's entirely unclear what you're implying. Are you suggesting it would be harder to invade the US than Afghanistan (duh, that's the goal) or easier (in which case, what makes you think that)?

Given that the Afghans were equipped with stuff the US had spare, I imagine Raleur means that invading the US would be harder simply because of its much larger and far better equipped military.

Yes, this is part of what I mean.

To clarify further:

There currently exists no power on earth with the manpower, technology, and economic strength to invade and occupy the United States. If such an entity existed, it's hard to believe that it wouldn't already be aware of, and be capable of dealing with, the inferior weaponry and lack of training that our wishful-thinking guardians have to offer.

Certainly, there would be people who resisted, and I don't doubt they could make a nuisance of themselves. But their pursuers would have already defeated the best military technology in the world: does anyone really think they couldn't handle some yokels in Appalachia if they became anything more than a nuisance? Does anyone think that such an occupying force would not have already learned from American and Soviet failures?

Also, let's not forget that the Afghanis were consistently supplied with money, arms, and training from other nations for the express purpose of harassing the Soviets and bleeding them dry. After a while, even the most carefully stocked bunker in Wyoming runs out of bullets: who would supply the American mujahideen?

There currently exists no power on earth with the manpower, technology, and economic strength to invade and occupy the United States.

Yes, "currently." To assume that we will remain on top indefinitely is folly. Our status as the only military superpower is:
• Recent
• Unintentional (a byproduct of having tried to strip the Soviets of that position)
• Unsustainable
• Undesirable (by many including me, who don't wish to lock in our necessity for such a beast by removing the other redundant systems we used to have in order to not need it)
• Self-reversing (our existence spurs competition to counteract our dominance, just as the Soviets' existence spurred our current state)

If such an entity existed, it's hard to believe that it wouldn't already be aware of, and be capable of dealing with, the inferior weaponry and lack of training that our wishful-thinking guardians have to offer.

Certainly, there would be people who resisted, and I don't doubt they could make a nuisance of themselves. But their pursuers would have already defeated the best military technology in the world: does anyone really think they couldn't handle some yokels in Appalachia if they became anything more than a nuisance? Does anyone think that such an occupying force would not have already learned from American and Soviet failures?

Also, let's not forget that the Afghanis were consistently supplied with money, arms, and training from other nations for the express purpose of harassing the Soviets and bleeding them dry. After a while, even the most carefully stocked bunker in Wyoming runs out of bullets: who would supply the American mujahideen?

Warfare has been more about economics than weaponry for over 1000 years. And ever since Korea our superior technology has not allowed us to crush inferiorly equipped insurgencies. Not to mention that the invader may well have been seriously weakened by the US army before defeating it. Not to mention we might very well get foreign support like we did in the revolution and like most insurgencies have gotten over the years. Not to mention our insurgency has a good chance of being larger (numbers and area) than any seen before. Not to mention that the probability of failure is not a good reason to give up hope of success. And not to mention the army might be compromised somehow leaving the homeland vulnerable even to a weaker opponent than the army (like something unimaginable like drawing it to the other side of the globe to get mired in 2 foreign wars, being bombed on the ground on a sunday morning, or by sabotage).

Your proposal supposes that additional rules will make a difference when existing rules have not. The Washington police officer was tried and the trial ended in a hung jury. The DA dropped charges, as the jury indicated that they did not see a way for any other jury to come to a unanimous conclusion (he was charged with manslaughter). However, there have been plenty of people who have been tried and convicted of failing to protect their children by securing firearms; my example was about the fact that a police officer (I pointed out we both expect them to follow rules and know something about guns) was negligent.

I firmly advocate educating EVERYONE about firearms. Instead of keeping them secret and mysterious. Start by teaching children from an early age that guns are to be handled ONLY by adults, and if a child encounters a gun he or she should tell an adult immediately. This approach has a good track record, whether in a formalized program (like "Eddie Eagle") or informally, as in the way my wife and her siblings were taught. If people don't dork around with things they shouldn't, it's harder for them to get into trouble, and teaching a child from an early age that he shouldn't touch a firearm is an excellent way to stop the sort of tragedy in my example.

Your "barely trained action movie enthusiast" is an excellent example of someone who desperately needs training for safety, if nothing else. But let's also look at the way Western society looks at action movies versus real life. If that enthusiast's only exposure to "action," be it with or without firearms, is in movies, then he's probably got a significantly skewed idea of social interactions and how to handle conflict, as well as a completely incorrect idea of what firearms do, how they work, their sounds, etc. Society seems to push the combination of ignorance and fantasy that goes into the public's enjoyment of action movies, while attempting to ensure that the public has no actual data about such things as weapons, conflict management, etc. A "barely trained action movie enthusiast" (or Gears of War "expert") is likely to be socially inept, and either lashes out in response to conflict (very dysfunctionally), or withdraws (and goes home to his Mom's basement). The point is that movies like this are not like life, and if someone gets his ideas about life from these films, he has bigger problems. Note still that I am advocating education for EVERYONE, not just "kids, don't touch this!", so Action Movie Bob should be educated as well. What is still a problem is the question of what training, by whom, to what standards (not just passing score, but mastery of what specific, key points and knowledges)? I spent well over a decade developing training programs on very complex systems, administering and teaching those programs, validating them (ensuring they do what they are supposed to) and confirming that graduates had the specific skills and knowledge needed to perform their jobs. The job itself was the "standard" the students needed to meet, so there was little chance for someone to influence the course content for political purposes. Establishing a "minimum educational requirement" for gun ownership is about as politically devisive as you can get, and there are so many ways to make the content of such programs skewed to favor a few individuals, or to deny gun ownership to almost everyone, that this is a major flaw in a "license program that requires a specific course."

You never really answered my question. You basically said the same thing I had already said which is why I asked you to point out the exact parts of what I said you didnt like. I dont think you ever read what I posted which included mandatory safety course, and proper storage requirements.

"The fix" is for lawful citizens to understand that protecting their community is a part of their civic responsibility and they should be armed.

That would only work if there was a requirement of 200 hours of range time per year to maintain the license that allowed you to carry in public to protect the public. Last thing you want is some dude who's fired a gun once a decade ago trying to defend a group of people with a gun. Hes as likely to shoot the people hes trying to protect or himself will just be killed quickly because he lacks proficiency with the weapon. I personally have a problem with concealed weapons. As far as im concerned they should be worn on the outside and seen to be a deterrent.

1. to encourage citizens to be more proactive in their communities, asserting their right to bear arms.
2. a better understanding of firearms and their place in American society, along with comprehensive firearm education.
3. schools with armed officers or deputies in the school at all times, with metal detectors and limited points of entry. (This is already standard practice in my area.)
4. the launch of a mental health registry. Tracking individuals who are determined to be disturbed and have violent tendencies, while providing a support structure for them.

I really like this, I'm going to work on a draft and send it to my reps and senators and see about fleshing it out. All but one would be within the domain of the states, the registry would have to be national to lessen the likelihood of people slipping through the cracks.

1 (Meh)
2 (Yes)
3 (No) Remove the metal detectors. Remove the guards. Turn it back into a school not a prison.
4 Absolutely, and with a good mental health system in place you wont need number 3 either.

One of the frequent reasons cited for us owning whatever guns we want is giving us tools to overthrow a tyrannical government. This notion is so absurd, it is laughable.

In the event of a civil war, the victor will be whomever the US military sides with. Our assault rifles and hand guns are no match for predator drones, tanks, bombs, and whatever else they could throw at us. If the military will help us overthrow a tyrannical regime then we can just sit back and let them do their job while it obliterates Obama, Boehner, Reid and their minions.

I think some of the gun nuts worried about tyrannical governments replacement our democracy are basically just wannabe cowboys that have watched too many Die Hard movies.

Wrong, at the end of the day numbers will win. Its why the US military could never take over Canada. They dont have the numbers to secure everything. Not to mention the damage we could do back. In a civil war sooner or later the US military would run out of fuel. They can't protect all sources of fuel from the rebels. They eventually will lose enough men they cant hold anything and lose. It would be long and bloody but at the end of the day the people would win. This has repeated itself to a lessor extent in the middle east recently.

Wrong, at the end of the day numbers will win. Its why the US military could never take over Canada. They dont have the numbers to secure everything. Not to mention the damage we could do back. In a civil war sooner or later the US military would run out of fuel. They can't protect all sources of fuel from the rebels. They eventually will lose enough men they cant hold anything and lose. It would be long and bloody but at the end of the day the people would win. This has repeated itself to a lessor extent in the middle east recently.

That's what WMD and "shock & awe" strategies are for. You'll note that Saddam was able to successfully hold back revolution, just with the *rumour* of WMD, despite having far fewer numbers.

Wrong, at the end of the day numbers will win. Its why the US military could never take over Canada. They dont have the numbers to secure everything. Not to mention the damage we could do back. In a civil war sooner or later the US military would run out of fuel. They can't protect all sources of fuel from the rebels. They eventually will lose enough men they cant hold anything and lose. It would be long and bloody but at the end of the day the people would win. This has repeated itself to a lessor extent in the middle east recently.

Or, one side could just detonate some nuclear weapons and call it a day.

They can't protect all sources of fuel from the rebels. They eventually will lose enough men they cant hold anything and lose. It would be long and bloody but at the end of the day the people would win. This has repeated itself to a lessor extent in the middle east recently.

Did it? Even if you stop short of nukes, I think you are underestimating the difference in technology and firepower between the US military industrial complex and a semi-organised militia. I think everyone is.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Wrong, at the end of the day numbers will win. Its why the US military could never take over Canada. They dont have the numbers to secure everything.

Do you honestly believe this? Why secure anything when they can burn everything to the ground? I think it is more believable that the US is a rational country who can see that international unity is a better form of diplomacy. But rest assured that if they chose to that most countries would fall very quickly if the pressure was applied.

I know where I live we would last maybe a day. And that is optimistic.

Did it? Even if you stop short of nukes, I think you are underestimating the difference in technology and firepower between the US military industrial complex and a semi-organised militia. I think everyone is.

It is estimated that anywhere between 8-10 million people own a gun (300 million total guns not including the ones the Obama administration gun control legislators ran to the Mexican drug cartels) and there are what, 2.5 million people in the "standing armies" of the US?

Yes, Washington could certainly drop a nuke on a neighborhood or dispatch drones over the metropolis and tanks through the streets, but this will only stir the ire of the more hesitant gun owners and if they want to take an area house-by-house, they're going to have to get out of their shells of armor. Hell, Assad has amassed quite an arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria and even in his desperate hours has not resorted to this atrocity. (God forbid!) Again, it's not to endeavor the unthinkable, but to create enough hesitance on behalf of both parties that peace would prevail; weaponry you pray will never be necessary. It's no different than to have an "Insured by Smith and Wesson" sticker on your door, it's to keep the "honest" out. You cannot take ground without boots on it. It's not only a potential check on a US government run amok, but a check against any element hostile enough they'd seek to put boots on the ground in the US. Notwithstanding the more profound right to protect ones self from others in general as many in the aftermath of the storms of Katrina and Sandy could tell you. Looters don't come at you in single file.

It is estimated that anywhere between 8-10 million people own a gun (300 million total guns not including the ones the Obama administration gun control legislators ran to the Mexican drug cartels) and there are what, 2.5 million people in the "standing armies" of the US?

Yes, Washington could certainly drop a nuke on a neighborhood or dispatch drones over the metropolis and tanks through the streets, but this will only stir the ire of the more hesitant gun owners and if they want to take an area house-by-house, they're going to have to get out of their shells of armor. Hell, Assad has amassed quite an arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria and even in his desperate hours has not resorted to this atrocity. (God forbid!) Again, it's not to endeavor the unthinkable, but to create enough hesitance on behalf of both parties that peace would prevail; weaponry you pray will never be necessary. It's no different than to have an "Insured by Smith and Wesson" sticker on your door, it's to keep the "honest" out. You cannot take ground without boots on it. It's not only a potential check on a US government run amok, but a check against any element hostile enough they'd seek to put boots on the ground in the US. Notwithstanding the more profound right to protect ones self from others in general as many in the aftermath of the storms of Katrina and Sandy could tell you. Looters don't come at you in single file.

Assad won't use chemical weapons because the second he does the rest of the world is likely to get involved and that is not what he wants as it will cost him his power and more than likely his life.

I understand why you think gun ownership is necessary in this capacity, its not a difficult concept to grasp but I think it is simply simply incorrect. The argument is not about the difference between those 10 million people and their 300 million guns and no resistance at all. Its about however many assault weapons and other unnecessarily over the top privately owned, non-hunting weapons and then just the more practically useful hunting or sporting weapons. (And no, I don't consider firing machine guns at a range to be legitimate sport in this instance.) I know the SC has ruled that handguns are never, ever going to be questioned again in the US (thats how I understand it) but if it were up to me, I'd factor those into the debate too.

Or, one side could just detonate some nuclear weapons and call it a day.

Dude, seriously... Most of Canada's population sits on the US border. A good portion of drinking water sources come from Canada. Additionally our power networks are so intertwined any kind of assault like that would be equally devastating for portions of the US. Contamination of ground water would not stop at the 49th either. And then lets look at the fall out. The fact we are beside each other would make denoting a nuclear weapons on populated areas of Canada pretty stupid for the US environment. Can't do it over the cities with out causing EMP damage to American cities. For the most part couldn't use Nuclear weapons. Not unless you want fall out over Boston, NYC, Washington, Seattle and the farming heart lands.